lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:10:01 -0800 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Cc: Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tony Jones <tonyj@...e.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] x86: also CFI-annotate certain inline asm()s On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > > So no. A very strong NACK. The code was too ugly to live, there is no good > stated reason for it, and the only reason I can even remotely imagine is > wrong and complete crap anyway (ie making the CFI annotations a correctness > issue by introducing other infrastructure that depends on it always being > right). Btw, the sane thing to do is to make your infrastructure just say "If my frame walker hits a push/pop without CFI information, I'll just add it myself". Yes, that involved having to actuall ylook at the instruction. Tough shit. Just do it right. There aren't that many push/pop patterns. Don't make the kernel more fragile by introducing these kinds of hacky macros-from-hell. Improve the debugger, don't make kernel code worse because your out-of-tree debugging infrastructure is too broken to live. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists